Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 18 April 2013 15:10 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03ACB21F8F7B for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.981
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.981 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.732, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ydzs2ix4Bvlo for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872BA21F8F68 for <lwip@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3IFAgaP022580; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p548938F1.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.56.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39A13312C; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <64E6305D-109B-40E8-9CC6-F68CC55503E7@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:10:41 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7C4D9B56-CAB6-4ACA-91FE-77C7C28A9FE8@tzi.org>
References: <014001ce3369$1794bf50$46be3df0$@chinamobile.com> <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618C11457@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <64E6305D-109B-40E8-9CC6-F68CC55503E7@tzi.org>
To: "Dijk, Esko" <esko.dijk@philips.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "lwip@ietf.org" <lwip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight IP stack <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lwip>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:10:46 -0000
On Apr 18, 2013, at 10:54, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote: > Hope I can send around an update proposal today... Here it is: 2.3.1. LLN ("low-power lossy network") A related term that has been used recently is "low-power lossy network" (LLN). In its terminology document, the ROLL working group is saying [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]: LLN: Low power and Lossy networks (LLNs) are typically composed of many embedded devices with limited power, memory, and processing resources interconnected by a variety of links, such as IEEE 802.15.4 or Low Power WiFi. There is a wide scope of application areas for LLNs, including industrial monitoring, building automation (HVAC, lighting, access control, fire), connected home, healthcare, environmental monitoring, urban sensor networks, energy management, assets tracking and refrigeration.. [sic] In common usage, LLN often stands for "the network characteristics that RPL has been designed for". Beyond what is said in the ROLL terminology document, LLNs do appear to have significant loss at the physical layer, with significant variability of the delivery rate, and some short-term unreliability, coupled with some medium term stability that makes it worthwhile to construct medium-term stable directed acyclic graphs for routing and do measurements on the edges such as ETX [RFC6551]. Actual "low power" does not seem to be required for an LLN [I-D.hui-vasseur-roll-rpl-deployment], and the positions on scaling of LLNs appear to vary widely [I-D.clausen-lln-rpl-experiences]. The ROLL terminology document states that LLNs typically are composed of constrained nodes; this is also supported by the design of operation modes such as RPL's "non-storing mode". So, in the terminology of the present document, an LLN seems to be a constrained node network with certain network characteristics, which include constraints on the network as well. I hope that is a bit more to the point, and helps correlate the ROLL terminology to the one used in this document. I'll look at your other points now. Grüße, Carsten
- [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology Cao Zhen (CZ)
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology dominique.barthel
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology dominique.barthel
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology peter van der Stok
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology Cao Zhen (CZ)
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology ma yc
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology HS Zhang
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology Dijk, Esko
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology Cao Zhen (CZ)
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology Dijk, Esko
- Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology Carsten Bormann